Re: Judith's challenge #1 - ontological

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

John K and Howard,

Re: the comments below, I agree with John that I think
Rosen was either heading toward, or his work can be
extended such that, we can bridge the epistemic cut. I
think this is akin to saying he suggested ontological
import of the modeling relation.

Re:

Howard Pattee wrote:

> It seems to me that if there is no ontology implied here,
> but you suggest that only by adding some ontological
> subtlety does Bob’s modeling make a difference.

I would agree with this, but don't think it that subtle.
I think it is fundamental and needs to be dealt with in
explicit and direct ways. In fact I think it is rather
obvious and the fact that we (humans since Descartes)
have forgotten how crucial and simple it is, is telling.

> John continues:
> My question would be if Von Neumann saw this relationship as a natural
> ontology. In other words take the case where the natural system "NS" is
> a scientist doing modeling and you see the ontological view I'm
> referring to (also in my 1999 paper). As I indicated earlier there is
> even controversy about whether or not Rosen saw it ontologically like
> this, but I am convinced from his many comments, particularly the later
> ones, that he did, and also that no other interpretation will indeed
> produce a difference from these other prior views that you cite (and
> more).

Again I agree and think this a very important topic.

> HP: I have to reflect on this. Von Neumann’s views about quantum
> measurement definitely takes into account the scientist in the NS, but
> I’m not sure whether this would be considered  ontological.

This aspect of the modeler, thinker, epistemologist, knower,
subject also and always and fundamentally being "in" the
real world, natural system, being an integral and
unfractionable part/component/aspect/creative agent of
the "known", is the central issue in my opinion. The epistemic
cut is imaginary - it is like a trick of the mind, an abstraction,
creative act, gedanken experiment - we only can ever "pretend"
to be objective, removed, cut-off, "other" relative to any real
world, subset, natural system, environment, context. In
actuality we have continual and causal connections that link
us to, ground us in, enable our life and thinking - flows of
oxygen, water, food, to name the top 3 only. The cut is
artificial and it leads - when reified or treated as if real -
to artificial intelligence and artificial life. What we need is
a restoration of authentic intelligence and authentic life.

To forget this, to treat the cut as if real, is the start of many
problems and to me the root cause of our current global and
systemic pathologies in social, environmental health. But is
is also self-correcting, self-limiting, self-healing - you cannot
keep up the game of pretending to be separate, a disembodied,
de-contextualized, autonomous "mind" forever. Neglect of the
fundamental relationships and basis of life and mind will
catch up with one eventually, and these will then no longer
be possible to ignore. They now demand attention.

To heal this epistemic cut may be quite easy. I think Rosen's
work can suggest and guide the way. Many others' work can
help too. And I think many native people's never forget the
integral connection. My latest reading is of Alf Hornborg and
he explicitly links healing of the epistemic cut to solving the
dual and inter-dependent crises now of mind (loss of meaning
after radical descontruction of the post-moderns) and body
(as in biospheric physical/chemical/biological/ecological
life-support). He also calls this healing process
"recontextualizing". His book is "The Power of the Machine:
Global Inequalities of Economy, Technology and Environment".

Dan